My interpretation of “covfefe” was that it was a nonsense word, intentionally introduced to draw attention and bad press. In so doing, Trump reveals his game, he acts sensationally, or introduces errors on purpose, with the specific intent of spreading what he says further.

Of course, it might have the added benefit of scaring the enemy (what the fuck did he mean by this?) or it could be genuine comms. But the context of the quote and subsequent response makes the most sense to me.

As far as what is visible, we have not seen many “wins” on this side of the veil (although I’m sure there are more in the fog of war). But undoubtedly, Trump’s most obvious success (other than perhaps survival, and reelection) is the absolute destruction of the MSM, who have been defanged and left ineffectual. Covid has also greatly diminished the power of “health experts” and “academia”.

>>22058525

I bet. Diet Coke is one I’ve seen a lot. I assume DC.

>>22058539

Noted.

McDonalds - Golden Arches/M

>>22058243

O’Keefe does awesome work.

Hate to break it to you but Elon is an anime head and he’s got Trump’s ear. Vance plays Magic: The Gathering and who knows what Barron’s into.

As the boomers phase out more and more anime fans will be in govt. You’re gonna have to live with that.

>>22058585

Could be. I think he’s an important piece on the chessboard. But totally possible.

Has anon attempted to toy with “Plus Ultra” in the mental model, or not really?

So far, the two branches of speculation that have born the most fruit for me is the Gamestop saga and the /x/ post about the underwater uap base in Bermuda. (Not making any claims, simply conditional speculation).

>>22058609

>Penis

>Thoth

>Anti-Christian Jew mock-sodomizing a dog

What did you mean by this?

>>22058615

>>22058623

Interesting.

>>22058621

She’s got a regal way about her for sure.

Megyn Kelly’s been getting real popular on Twitter recently, aging well.

I’ve noticed some celebrities have started to look really bad recently. Thought it was just Ozempic at first but there might be something to Adrenochrome withdrawal. Also, wtf happened to Leno, looks like he got jumped, the black eye club is usually more subtle than that.

>>22058658

This is almost more embarrassing than the egirl recruitment psyops.

All “queer” people are mentally ill.

>>22058673

True.

>>22058674

If this country doesn’t return to Christ there is no making it great again. Normalizing sexual deviancy does nothing good.

>>22058682

True.

There is a place for justice and a place for mercy and we’ll need a lot of both before this is over.

>>22058684

They do not accurately reflect the faith and I am no fan of liberal churches.

Individual gay Christians, that’s between them and God. But participation is a sin.

>>22058692

Living a life of unrepentant sin does not bode well for one’s future.

>>22058693

My guess for the white hats is they are mostly of faith, but are looking for more of a 1776. We’ll see on the other side.

>>22058714

So you reveal that you’re not a believer, though your argument was, in essence, claiming to know more about the faith than me, by reducing doctrinal disagreements to a state of equal validity regardless of Biblical merit.

I’d suggest you think more critically before taking up an uninformed position again.

>>22058743

>Never claimed anything of the sort.

By introducing the concept of liberal Christianity, and acting as if I’m unaware of it, and then correcting my position as merely an interpretation, equal to that of liberal Christians, you made a positive statement: that both are of equal (internal) validity. This is making a theological statement on a religion it’s clear you know little about. It’s the equivalent of an outsider who sees one Q account on Twitter talking about flat earth and going “you’re a bunch of flat earthers”. Nonsense.

>You have to convince that the Bible has any merit first.

I actually do not in the context of this discussion. Whether or not you believe The Bible is true, has no bearing on discussing its internal logic. The issue isn’t your belief or lack thereof, the issue is your ignorance on the topic.

>>22058780

Do you have to believe Harry Potter is literally true to have a discussion about what it contains? Or can you discuss the internal logic of the book, regardless?

If somebody says that the main character of Harry Potter is actually Dobby, that would certainly be an interpretation, but would it be an interpretation supported by the text?

If you continue to struggle with this you’re either not mentally equipped to handle this or worse, you’re a total incoherent relativist, in which case, good luck.

>>22058795

The claim was that liberal Christianity wasn’t an accurate portrayal of the faith, you disagreed, and reduced the two perspectives into interpretive equivalence. So the topic at hand is not “fact or fiction”, but rather, internal consistency with scripture or not. You’re deflecting to an argument that has no bearing on the topic (is The Bible true) because you made a statement on something you know little about (these two positions are equally valid interpretations).

While I think learning about Christianity is in your best interest, there would not have been an argument between us had you not spoken for my faith as if you had enough information to justify your comment. You do not.

>>22058821

Can you back up the internal consistency for a biblical case for unrepentant sin? Or would you rather argue from scripture why sodomy/homosexual acts are not a sin?

Or are you not equipped to defend your theological statement?

>>22058830

Once again, you’ve had a breakdown in logic.

1. Does Harry Potter need to be true to discuss its internal logic? (You’ve answered ‘no’ so you are able to discuss The Bible regardless of belief.)

2. Are all interpretations of text equally valid or are some interpretations supported by the text more? (You’ve avoided this answer, are you a total interpretive relativist?)

What’s really going on here, is you haven’t studied The Bible, meaning, your statement that liberal Christianity is an equally valid interpretation is without basis, you can’t argue from internal logic because you have nothing to base your position on. All would have been fine, had you not made a positive statement about a faith you are uneducated on, but you did. Refrain from doing so in the future, it’ll serve you well.

>>22058860

I want you to defend your position, on the terms in which you made your positive claim, or retract, or give up.

You didn’t merely say this: >>22058828

While I disagree with that statement, at the very least it is merely articulating an external, broad position (all of this is nonsense). While I believe the case for God is stronger, the atheistic position is at least grounded in its own logic and is defensible, that debate lasts hours. You made a claim as to the internal logic of The Bible, one that is far more specific and easily refuted with just a cursory study of the source material. That’s the difference. Come from your own angle as you wish, but you want to critique my angle, in my neck of the woods? Gonna have to push you to support that (you cannot).

>>22058887

>I didn’t

Even worse, you did without knowing you did.

>I think Harry Potter is the main character of Harry Potter

>Well these other people think it’s Dobby!

>They are incorrect

>Well it’s all interpretation!

>Can you support the claim that these viewpoints are equally supported by the text?

>I don’t believe the text is true!

>That’s not what I asked. Can you substantiate equal validity or no?

>I don’t believe the text is true! (Repeat x5)

>>22058907

>Refusal to engage

I’ll accept that as a closer if you do.

>>22058275

DOGE is an efficiency through slimming program.